Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Compelling Reasons For Building The Deep Bore Tunnel (Revisited)

This post originally was published on this blog in October 2010.

Nearly four years ago I argued in a post
that the deep bore tunnel was the real compromise for replacing the
crumbling Alaskan Way viaduct architectural monstrosity. Although we
have moved closer to the actual beginning of construction there still
remains a number of very vocal entities in Seattle who continue to act
like Chicken Little when the idea of getting on with building the damn thing comes up.

The
main opposition seems to be Mayor McShwinn, bicyclists, certain
eggheaded writers at the SLOG that love hairsplitting , a number of
provincial thinking no tunnel folks, who I doubt own vehicles or
need to use the viaduct on a regular basis, the don't tax me no matter
what conservatives like Tim Eyman and people who like the view while
driving on the upper deck of this deathtrap of a highway.

Many Seattleites remain skeptical.
I think this is due mostly to a disinformation campaign, scare tactics,
stonewalling, vague conspiracy theories put forth by the opponents and
red herrings arguments coming from narrow-minded politicians,
environmentalists who ride bicycles as the main means of transportation
and anti-tunnel revisionists partially listed in the previous paragraph.
Presented with the realities and benefits of building the tunnel I
think that a majority of the citizens will come to the conclusion that
the deep bore tunnel should be built.

It was a memorable moment
when candidate McShwinn ended up mitigating his position in opposition
to the tunnel just prior to the election, based on his advisors
realizing that it would mean a probable election defeat. We know now
that that this political theater was actually quite disingenuous.
McShwinn never really liked the tunnel idea based on the ideology that
everyone in the future apparently will be riding a bicycle, taking a bus
or perhaps using space ships as a means of transport to get
goods to market. Something that is unrealistic given the present day and
foreseeable future demand for a corridor other than I-5 that will be
needed to move people and deliveries through the city using personal or
business trucks and vehicles.

McShwinn remains the main obstacle to progress. Even the City Council, to their credit, revolted
and decided that it’s now time to move on towards actual construction. I
think the citizens of Seattle and the region have had enough of the Chicken Little ideologically
driven nay-sayer's conspiracy theories that drive their arguments in
opposition to constructing the tunnel. The message from the opponents of
the tunnel often appears to be based in a condescending form of social
engineering that tells people, "we know best when it comes to
people who still find it necessary to drive a personal vehicle", or
that building a tunnel is is some vague way an attack on Seattle's
"values". Please!

The main “red herring” argument against the tunnel
seems to be that it will cost too much and create “cost overruns” that
the city’s taxpayer will be force to pay. Lesser “pink herring”
arguments runs the gambit and go something like this: That a tunnel
built so close to the water will be an engineering impossibility and
will probably cave-in during an earthquake. That there won’t be enough
exits from the tunnel directly to downtown. That commuters won’t be as
inclined to use public transit or ride their bike to wherever their
going instead of driving. Somehow they surmise that a major traffic
corridor through the city isn’t needed anymore once the viaduct is
removed. Their current talking point is surface traffic
increasing because tolling will make drivers more inclined to find other
routes. An argument that fails to point out that 100% of the traffic
will be on the surface streets if we go with their vague idea of using
surface streets and transit. Finally, they like the views from the
viaducts northbound upper deck when driving into town with their out of
town relatives in the car. If those excuses don't hold water just claim
that the sky is falling.

Let’s look at these arguments.

It cost too much and cost overruns:

Please
name me a major capital hybrid project of this scale anywhere in the
world in the last 100 years that didn’t have cost overruns? The Brooklyn
Bridge had cost overruns. Have a contractor give you a estimate for
major work on your house and the rule of thumb is that it will probably
cost more then you thought it would cost in the beginning so add 15% to
the estimate.

We should be looking at this project like
the once in a lifetime project it is, and therefore it’s going to cost
lots of money simply based on the size and scope of the undertaking.
Considering the numerous long-term benefits the replacement of the
viaduct and seawall will surely generate its worth it, given the
increase in commerce it will bring for the region and its inhabitants.
It’s really more about controlling cost overruns.

Lawmakers have gone on the record
repeatedly stating that cost overruns will be controlled and the city’s
responsibility for paying them mitigated. But, the Mayor continues to
use this dishonest sandbag in a rather outmoded way. McShwinn really
doesn’t want a tunnel at all and I believe he really never did. Most
reasonable lawmakers, who have to answer to their constituents too, have
moved on. They, at least, have the courage to see that building the
tunnel is the real compromise here given the options that we have all
been talking about ad nauseum for years now.

That
the tunnel can’t be engineered safely, will be a construction nightmare
and unsafe. The tunnel will eventually probably “cave-in”, during the
eventual earthquake:

Hey scardicats,
please! They build a tunnel under the English Channel didn’t they? We
even built the downtown transit tunnel that most people don’t feel is
going to collapse anytime soon. Modern engineers must have a good laugh
about this objection. Bold engineering ideas help build this country.
It’s duplicitous to say this tunnel will ultimately be unsound. If the
region has a “big one” earthquake most shit will cave in folks no matter
how well or when it was built. Earthquake faults are better understood
today and engineers will take that into consideration. Digging tunnels is common place nowadays and this tunnel is nothing that modern engineers can't handle.

There won’t be enough exits directly to downtown:

It
is truly the nature of the beast. Eventually people will adapt to the
changes and learn how to navigate the new highway system. Though there
are varying opinions about such matters, such as the loss of access
ramps to downtown. I think overall the tunnel will be a traffic moving
improvement and environmental benefit by reducing the overall amount of
traffic over time given the combination of plans to improve surface
transit , foot and bicycle traffic options.

People will still be more inclined to use cars rather then public transit:

When
someone lives on Vashon Island, as I do, or in West Seattle or Ballard
they actually need their car to efficiently get to central Seattle and
beyond. Businesses have to make deliveries and trucks need to move
goods. Not everyone wants or desires to use public transit or bicycles.
People will use public transit when the city builds a viable transit
system. Seattle’s politicians and citizens have missed the boat when it
comes to actually building a real transit system in this region
for years and we continue to lag behind most modern cities. The politics
of having a modern transit system caught up in the same process that now stalls the tunnel construction. We continue the local political tradition of having a lack of vision or chutzpa.

We don’t need two major traffic corridors anyway. Let them use I-5:

This
excuse is tied to “let them use I-5 for a while as the only way to get
to town and then for sure they’ll be willing to consider riding a bike”.
Seattle and the region need two major traffic corridors through the
city. I-5 was not designed to handle the traffic increase that would
take place if the highway 99 were not available. Commerce must move
goods and services to market. Emergency response services would be
impaired. You can’t use a bicycle or the bus if you’re a plumber going
from south Seattle to Ballard to a job site.

Tolls are unfair or will force people to take other surface routes.

Historically tolling to support transportation projects is nothing new in Washington State. I recall paying tolls for years to paid for the first Lake Washington floating bridge. The amounts of the tolls for the tunnel have not been agreed upon, and will be adjusted so that they make the cost of using the tunnel acceptable to most drivers. I think most reasonable people understand that capital transportation improvements of this nature require reasonable tolling.

The sky is falling:

Perhaps on a second term for Mayor McGinn

But there are also many compelling reason why constructing a deep bore tunnel is the best option for the city. Here are a few:

Safety:

Everyone
agrees that the Viaduct needs replacing, is falling down and that a
major earthquake could cause the structure to actually collapse with
deadly results. The construction of the new tunnel also will include
construction of a new seawall replacing the failing one that now exists.

Quality of Life:

Once
the tunnel is constructed and the viaduct demolished Seattle should
have one of the best waterfronts environments in the world. Everyone,
even the “stop the tunnel” crowd, agrees the viaduct has been an
architectural mistake. It’s ugly, blocks the waterfront from the
downtown business district and actually serves as a “fence” that blocks
economic development from happening in what potentially could be one of
the most viable redeveloped neighborhoods in the world.

Small
parks will line the areas where the viaduct once lived and promenades
and city streets will replace most of the urban mess that now exists.
New Businesses and shops are sure to thrive along this new viaduct-less
thoroughfare. Hundreds if not thousands of new jobs can be generated by
the redevelopment of the area. Seattle’s downtown will once again be
connected more directly to the water. Traffic and smog will be reduced
while walking and bicycles traffic will be enhanced and safer.

Jobs and more Jobs:

I
have argued for some time that building the tunnel and seawall will
bring thousands of union wage jobs during construction. Call it a super
massive local stimulus plan if you want.These workers will be buying
goods and services in the local economy. Billions of dollars will be
pumped into the area directly related to tunnel and waterfront construction. In this
time of economic insecurity it’s a no brainier. Local labor leadership
and workers agree
and estimate 30.000 new construction jobs with be created. As I said
above the redevelopment of the neighborhoods surrounding the new tunnel
will also create countless jobs.

The new deep bore tunnel option will keep traffic flowing during construction:

Completing
the tunnel before the viaduct is removed will assure the least amount
of disruption of the thousands of cars that use the corridor each day. A
surface only option or replacement option would severely disrupt
traffic for years during demolition and/or replacement. Most political
leaders realized that keeping the viaduct open to traffic during
construction of the tunnel was the real compromise.

Need for Action:

As
I have said above. Most political types and many citizens agree that
it's a time for action. 10 years of discussion meetings and committees on what to do with
the viaduct is long enough. Had Mayor McSchwinn not been elected I think
this project would have be closer to starting today. McSchwinn and his
anti-tunnel allies need to realize that the tunnel “is the compromise”
that knowledgeable citizens, stakeholders, most of our elected
officials, and many sincere citizen activists have reached. Further
delay will only add more cost to the project in the long run.

11 comments:

Your response to this is the most insulting thing I've read in this entire debate. The entire project is about improving traffic. However, the state's own study shows that people won't use the tunnel and, as a result, will worsen traffic downtown and on I5.

And your response to this fact that trumps every other argument you make? "I think it will get better over time." How dense do you have to be to make that claim?

I suppose I'm one of the "narrow-minded politicians," but I can say I don't raise most of those "Chicken Little" arguments above.

I point out that there's NO MONEY for the bicyce, pedestrian, and transit improvements that are necessary to make the tunnel work -- and no one will say where they plan to get the money from.

I also point out that the State CANNOT LOWER TOLLS because they have required tolls to generate $400 million of the cost of the tunnel construction.

If we don't lower tolls, the project's own studies tell us that as much as 50% of the existing traffic will divert to the street. Again, there is no money to pay for street improvements, and that is not the responsibility of the state.

Obviously, a surface option puts all the traffic on the surface... but, by definition, it also targets all the investments to the improvements necessary to move all the people and goods through the corridor.

While you're busy redlining your snark tachometer, it should be pointed out that one needn't be a proverbial 'chicken little' or 'scardicat' (isn't Urban Dictionary great?) to be concerned about the engineering of the viaduct tunnel.

The Chunnel was built in deep clay chalk--naturally waterproof. http://goo.gl/itIy8

The Bus Tunnel was a water park. http://goo.gl/TvSiU (favorite section of the article: ``You'd think they would have planned better on there being water down here. After all, this is Seattle.''Metro says it did plan on the water being there. It just didn't know where, exactly.``All tunnels leak,'' said spokesman Dan Williams.)

I live in West Seattle and work in Ballard, driving much of the time, and am still against the viaduct. So the ad hominem argument you start with fails. I notice the rest of the post is based on how you "feel". What about research and facts like those in the state EIS? Why are you ignoring the clear implications of that? It doesn't suit your case?

What about the State's own traffic study that said the tunnel would put more traffic downtown than surface transit OR just closing the Viaduct altogether? Or the Brightwater tunnel that's still stalled underground?

I am a driver. I currently use the viaduct to commute to work from Ballard to SODO twice a day (split shift). I will experience inconvenience if the viaduct goes, and a tunnel takes its place.

So I say this: FUCK the viaduct, and LONG LIVE THE TUNNEL.

As a Seattle native, I have always hated that loud, ugly, smelly incursion to an otherwise vibrant waterfront full of shops, restaurants and entertainment. I can remember as a child trying to hear the calliope at Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe (the old one that was just south of the ferry terminal) over the roar of cars overhead.

Sorry, there's no such person as "McShwinn". He is a straw man you created in your head, not the actual mayor of Seattle.

Your argument is full of holes and doesn't address what tunnel opponents are really saying. The idea that enviros want to get rid of all cars is false. Wanting more transit, more bikes, and fewer cars does not equal wanting only bikes and trains and no cars. Total straw man argument.

As for the huge expense, which you dismiss as inevitable given that it's a large project - you are ignoring the fact that high costs are justified only if the benefits are commensurately large. In the case of the tunnel, the benefits clearly do not justify the cost. All those arguments that you dismiss as "pink herrings" are pieces of the larger argument that the benefits are not enough to justify the cost. What the tunnel opponents really think is that the billions of dollars that would be required to build the tunnel would go a lot farther in reducing congestion and securing Seattle's future if they were spent on transit. The reason so many people still need a car to get where there going is because the transit doesn't exist and needs to be built. The tunnel is a terrible idea that will take money away from much worthier transportation projects and keep people shackled to their cars instead of giving them affordable, environmentally friendly options.

Thank you. I have now decided how I will cast my vote in the August election. I can't wait to show this article to my friends and family who are also trying to decide where they stand on this complex issue. I will vote to reject Referendum 1.